United States v. Augusto Espindola-Pineda
708 F. App'x 778
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Augusto Espindola-Pineda pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine and 500+ g of methamphetamine mixture, and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense.
- He was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment following the guilty plea.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal; Espindola-Pineda did not file a pro se brief and the Government did not respond.
- The appeal raised (by review) whether the Rule 11 plea colloquy was adequate and whether the sentence was reasonable.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy for plain error and reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under Gall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy | Espindola-Pineda (through counsel) implied challenge that plea may not have been fully informed | Court ensured plea supported by factual basis and defendant understood charges, penalties, and rights waived | No plain error; magistrate substantially complied with Rule 11 |
| Voluntariness and factual basis of plea | Plea may have lacked independent factual basis or voluntariness | Transcript showed independent factual basis and knowing, voluntary plea | Held knowing, voluntary, and factually supported |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Sentence may have procedural flaws (calculation, consideration of §3553(a), explanation) | District court correctly calculated Guidelines, heard arguments, considered §3553(a), and explained sentence | Sentence procedurally reasonable |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Sentence may be substantively unreasonable given circumstances | Sentence was below Guidelines; defendant failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness | Sentence substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw and asserts appeal is frivolous)
- DeFusco v. United States, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requirements for plea colloquy and knowing, voluntary plea)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- Massenburg v. United States, 564 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2009) (plain error review of plea colloquy when no motion to withdraw plea)
- Louthian v. United States, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for below-Guidelines sentence)